Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:39:13.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition of artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) with native and exotic grassland species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Virginia A. White  and
Jodie S. Holt
Virginia A. White
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Determining the nature of root and shoot competition can elucidate the competitive ability of an invasive species and direct management strategies. In a set of competition experiments, artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), an exotic invasive perennial forb, was subjected to full or shoot competition with four species: black mustard (Brassica nigra), an exotic annual forb; ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), an exotic annual grass; purple needle-grass (Nassella pulchra), a native perennial grass; and itself. For shoot competition, a smaller pot nested in a larger experimental pot sequestered the target plant root system. A bare ground invasion experiment, in which all plants were transplanted on the same date, and a community invasion experiment, in which competitor species were planted 1 mo before targets, were conducted. In the bare ground invasion experiment, target plant size was reduced (P ≤ 0.05) when exposed to full competition with the exotic species, but not purple needle-grass. Effects on target plants included reductions in height, number of leaves, rosette diameter, and shoot and leaf dry weight. In the community invasion experiment, full competition with all species reduced target plant growth (P ≤ 0.05). Shoot competition was more important when all species were planted synchronously, whereas root competition was more important when target plant establishment was delayed. In a separate experiment, artichoke thistle was grown under four light levels simulating field conditions under canopies of the same competitors. Midday carbon assimilation decreased linearly with increased shade, indicating the likely effects of shoot competition on artichoke thistle. Results indicated that exotic species are more competitive than native purple needle-grass against artichoke thistle and that restoration directly to native grassland after artichoke thistle removal might be difficult. However, artichoke thistle seedling growth is reduced by root competition from grasses that emerge earlier, indicating that early season management of grasslands to delay artichoke thistle establishment might provide effective control.

Keywords

Artichoke thistle, Cynara cardunculus L. CYNCAblack mustard, Brassica nigra (L.) Kock BRANIpurple needle-grass, Nassella pulchra (A. Hitchc.) Barkworth NASPUripgut grass, Bromus diandrus Roth BRODICompetition mechanismsinvasive speciesnonnative speciesshade
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 6 , December 2005 , pp. 826 - 833
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Austin, M. P., Groves, R. H., Fresco, L. M. F., and Kaye, P. E. 1985. Relative growth of six thistle species along a nutrient gradient with multispecies competition. J. Ecol 73:667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, H. G. 1986. Patterns of plant invasion in North America. Pages 44–57 in Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A. eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Baruch, Z. and Goldstein, G. 1999. Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration, and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia 121:183–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjorkman, O. and Holmgren, P. 1963. Adaptability of the photosynthetic apparatus to light intensity in ecotypes from exposed and shaded habitats. Physiol. Plant 16:889–914.Google Scholar
Boardman, N. K. 1977. Comparative photosynthesis of sun and shade plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol 28:355–377.Google Scholar
Casper, B. B. and Jackson, R. B. 1997. Plant competition underground. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 28:545–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J. D. and D'Antonio, C. M. 2004. Can carbon addition increase competitiveness of native grasses? A case study from California. Restor. Ecol 12:36–43.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci 35:720–725.Google Scholar
Desrochers, A. M., Bain, J. F., and Warwick, S. I. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 89. Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. Can. J. Plant Sci 68:1053–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Pirosko, C. B. 2003. Effect of light and density on yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) root growth and soil moisture use. Weed Sci 51:334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doing, H., Biddiscombe, E. F., and Knedlhans, S. 1969. Ecology and distribution of the Carduus nutans group (nodding thistles) in Australia. Vegetatio 17:313–351.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, J. W., Harrington, R. A., and Fownes, J. H. 2003. Survival, growth, and gas exchange of Celastrus orbiculatus seedlings in sun and shade. Am. Mid. Nat 151:233–140.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Randall, J. M. 1994. Biology of bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore. Rev. Weed Sci 6:29–50.Google Scholar
Gill, R. E. 1990. Noxious weeds of California. Part 2: distribution maps, B-rated weeds. Calif. Pests Dis. Rep 9:74–125.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat 11:1169–1194.Google Scholar
Groves, R. H. and Kaye, P. E. 1989. Germination and phenology of seven introduced thistle species in Southern Australia. Aust. J. Bot 37:351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J. G., Holzapfel, C., and Mahall, B. E. 1999. Coexistence and interference between a native perennial grass and non-native annual grasses in California. Oecologia 121:518–526.Google Scholar
Hayes, G. F. and Holl, K. D. 2003. Site-specific responses of native and exotic species to disturbances in a mesic grassland community. Appl. Vegetation Sci 6:235–244.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. C. E. 1993. The Jepson Manual. Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 45–46.Google Scholar
Hillyard, D. 1985. Artichoke thistle. Fremontia 12:21–22.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L., Buhler, D. D., and Regnier, E. E. 2002. Utilizing Sorghum as a functional model of crop–weed competition. II. Effects of manipulating emergence time or rate. Weed Sci 50:473–478.Google Scholar
Huenneke, L. F. and Thomson, J. K. 1995. Potential interference between a threatened endemic thistle and an invasive nonnative plant. Conserv. Biol 9:416–425.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. 2000. Cynara cardunculus . Pages 139–145 in Bossard, C. C., Randall, J. M., and Hoshovsky, M. C. ed. Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786.Google Scholar
Kotanen, P. M. 2004. Revegetation following soil disturbance and invasion in a California meadow: a 10-yr history of recovery. Biol. Invasions 6:245–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, L. L. and McInnis, M. L. 1989. Impact of grass seedlings on establishment and density of diffuse knapweed and yellow starthistle. Northwest Sci 63:162–166.Google Scholar
Lentz, K. A. and Cipollini, J. D. F. 1998. Effect of light and simulated herbivory on growth of endangered northeastern bulrush, Scirpus ancistrochaetus Schuyler. Plant Ecol 139:125–131.Google Scholar
McAllister, C. A., Knapp, A., and Maragni, L. A. 1998. Is leaf-level photosynthesis related to plant success in a highly productive grassland? Oecologia 177:40–46.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. S. and Aarssen, L. W. 2001. The separation of above- and below-ground competition in plants: a review and critique of methodology. Plant Ecol 152:119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medd, R. W. and Lovett, J. V. 1978. Biological studies of Carduus nutans (L.) ssp. nutans. I. Germination and light requirement of seedlings. Weed Res 18:363–367.Google Scholar
Nagel, J. M. and Griffin, K. L. 2004. Can gas-exchange characteristics help explain the invasive success of Lythrum salicaria? Biol. Invasions 6:101–111.Google Scholar
Parsons, W. T. and Cuthbertson, E. G. 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Melbourne: Inkata Press. Pp. 204–208.Google Scholar
Pignone, D. and Sonnante, G. 2004. Wild artichokes of south Italy: did the story begin here? Genet. Resour. Crop Evol 51:577–580.Google Scholar
Pook, E. W. 1983. The effect of shade on the growth of variegated thistle (Silybum marianum L.) and cotton thistle (Onopordum sp). Weed Res 23:11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Harper, J. L. 1972. Occupation of biological space during seedling establishment. J. Ecol 60:77–88.Google Scholar
Sakai, A. K., Allendorf, F. W., and Holt, J. S. et al. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 32:305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp). Weed Sci 45:670–673.Google Scholar
Seabloom, E. W., Harpole, W. S., Reichman, O. J., and Tilman, D. 2003. Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species. PNAS 100:13384–13389.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994. Comparative growth and interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seedlings. J. Range Manag 47:470–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1995. Interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle at 3 soil depths. J. Range Manag 48:392–397.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Larson, L. L., and Johnson, D. E. 1993. Germination and root dynamics of range weeds and forage species. Weed Technol 7:234–237.Google Scholar
Sindel, B. M. 1991. A review of the ecology and control of thistles in Australia. Weed Res 31:189–201.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Pp. 172–208.Google Scholar
Thomsen, C., Barbe, G., Williams, W., and George, M. 1986. “Escaped” artichokes are troublesome pests. Calif. Agric 40:7–9.Google Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Nicholson, K. S., Ahmed, M., and Rahman, A. 1994. Interference effects of the invasive plant Carduus nutans L. against the nitrogen fixation ability of Trifolium repens L. Plant Soil 163:287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Nicholson, K. S., Ahmed, M., and Rahman, A. 1995. Influence of pasture forage species on seedling emergence, growth and development of Carduus nutans . J. Appl. Ecol 32:225–233.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. B. 1988. Shoot competition and root competition. J. Appl. Ecol 25:279–296.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Kachman, S. D. 1999. Effect of perennial grasses on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Technol 13:83–87.Google Scholar
Zink, T. A. and Allen, M. F. 1998. The effects of organic amendments on the restoration of a disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat. Restor. Ecol 6:52–58.Google Scholar